Posted by Tina
Erskine Bowles – who co-chaired President Obama’s Deficit Commission and previously served as chief of staff for President Clinton had very flattering things to say about the Ryan budget last year:
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
But are you really hearing the man?
Ryan proposed a $4B cut (heavily nailing poor people).
Obama proposed a $4B cut (heavily nailing not-poor people).
The Senate wouldn’t go for either one.
The Senate went for $2B, heaviliy back-ended cuts, very politically hoping that in 10 years revenues will be back up.
It was really a very conservative thing to do, when you think about it.
Okay. You say you prefer to settle for a measly $2B in cuts (savings) when we are trillions in the hole. You claim poor people are going to be hurt but if you will notice under Obama poor people are piling up like kindling in a lumber yard!
Here’s why $2B (and even$4B) is pretty silly and why the reforms in Ryan’s plan are so important (difficult but necessary) for the long term outlook.
Interest alone on our debt in 2011 was $454 billion. We have added $5 trillion in interest debt in 31/2 years. This is astounding since the interest rate is 0% Federal Reserve and T-Bills are barely above that! Imagine what will happen to interest totals when those rates begin to rise…and they will.
Some of you will find reading through this page interesting (if scary)
http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm
Libby is right. The guy talks about how this will lower our deficit, but gives no attention to the human costs of this. Ryan’s plan pushes all of the costs onto the poor and elderly. We’re paying enough already! We can’t afford to pay for tax cuts on the rich. We need to address the growing problem of income inequality now. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, yet social mobility is lower here than in most socialized countries. That means you are more likely than those countries–and more likely than any previous generation–to die in the same tax bracket you were born into. People are not moving up in America today. Ryan’s plan will make it even harder for lower and middle-class Americans to do this. His plan makes college less affordable by gutting the Pell grant, meaning thousands of kids who would otherwise be able to go to school, develop their skills and get a degree and a good job won’t be able to do that. This plan is a disaster and it must be stopped.
Here is a copy of the email I just sent to my contacts. (Noticed the chart didn’t go thru, but the link is still there.)
Dear Friends, My postings and emails are intended to inform and not offend. I just want my son and grandkids to have a better life then I did. Therefore, everyones vote this November is very important no matter what party you belong to. Please take a few minutes a read the below information and check out the links for what I think is very important.
We are $16 trillion in debt and projections indicate $24 trillion by 1921 just nine years away. With the US population at approximately 300 million every man, woman and child owes over $50,000 today and will owe around $75,000 by 2021.
For the future of my son and grandkids we desperately need a balanced budget like we had just 12 years ago in 2000 when we even had a $230 billion surplus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
As of July 2012, debt held by the public was $11.12 trillion, while the intra-governmental debt was $4.81 trillion, to give a combined total public debt outstanding of $15.93 trillion, roughly 103% of current dollar GDP.[4] The public debt has increased by over $500 billion each year since fiscal year (FY) 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008, $1.9 trillion in FY2009, $1.7 trillion in FY2010, and $1.2 trillion in FY2011.[5][6] As of February 2012, $5.1 trillion or approximately 50% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were China and Japan at just over $1 trillion each.[7] As of June 2012, nominal GDP of the United States was $15.59 trillion.[8]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/CBO_-
_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png
Amid latest European bailout, warning signs in US debt figures:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/14/amid-latest-european-bailout-warning-signs-in-us-debt-figures/#ixzz23XsI0k2w
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus:
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.”This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States,” Clinton said Wednesday morning. “Like our American athletes in Sydney, we’ve been breaking records and have come a long way.”In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history.”The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order,” Clinton said.The president’s news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.”I hope we will see a continuation of this trend in the final budget negotiations,” the president said. “I am concerned frankly about the size and last-minute nature of this year’s congressional spending spree.” Congress, Clinton said, has not adequately funded education programs, strengthened Medicare and funded other domestic priorities set forth by the administration.”These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts,” Clinton said.The president unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House, before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.”This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus,” said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has “real effects for real Americans.” It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs.”It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive years of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was 122.7 billion, and 69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
Chris there is no basis for your claim that the Ryan plan “pushes all of the cost onto the poor and the elderly”. If you are going to make such outrageous statements you need to tell us how you came to that conclusion.
Tax cuts for the rich is a bumper sticker without meaning. Ryan suggests we cut out the loopholes and there are no tax increases for the poor or the elderly. Explain yourself!
“That means you are more likely than those countries–and more likely than any previous generation–to die in the same tax bracket you were born into.”
This is particularly true under Obama and the Democrats. Obamacare actually does take money from medicare:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/01/obamacare-robs-medicare-of-716-billion-to-fund-itself/
That hurts the elderly that will have more out of pocket expense or won’t get services.
More people are on food stamps than ever before in our nations history. More people have applied for social security or SS disability because they can’t find jobs and our unemployment among the poor is higher than ever.
Go ahead, Chris, brag on what President Obama has done for the poor and the elderly, the working folk…other than making the numbers who are needy GROW!
A growing economy with opportunity for people to go back to work and pay taxes will create all kinds of opportunity for every American…just like it did in the 1980’s and again in the 1990’s when fiscal conservative pro-growth polices were enacted.
Paul Ryan knows our economy inside and out. He worked with a Democrat to create his budget proposal. His proposal is not radical (many say it doesn’t go far enough to correct our “woes”) but it is sensible, it is a good place to start, and it is absolutely going to help put American back to work!
I would agree with Chris about his comment of being frozen into a tax bracket for life, especially if you follow a socialistic ideology. As far as I am concerned, Government owes us basics like, protection from enemies off shore or with the boundaries of America. They need to use tax dollars in a fiscally correct manner, and if we cant afford a Rolls Royce, then buy a bicycle. They are not here to create a level playing field. Advancement in life in any manner is largely dependent on self reliance and achieved mostly by determination. Advancement is not a life style from the Government. We are going in the wrong direction because of this current administration. Obamas vision for America is trying to reduce us to a nation of dependency that looks to the Government to provide everything, and if not given enough the dependants complain life is not fair. The Obama administration has actually championed a mindset such as Chris is attempting to convince us of, that we can only achieve equal opportunities through the redistribution of wealth, and we need government to do that. That mantra of spiteful jealousy is a foundation for failure. Sorry but life is not fair, and when people do not seek and build on their own, they are no better off that the indentured of the past.
Chris you really are posting on the wrong blog, if you expect most of us here to believe we need to give credit to government for our own successful efforts.
Tina: “Chris there is no basis for your claim that the Ryan plan “pushes all of the cost onto the poor and the elderly”. If you are going to make such outrageous statements you need to tell us how you came to that conclusion.”
Sometimes you talk like a person who doesn’t keep up with politics in the slightest. I know you didn’t just get off the bus yesterday, Tina. You’re well aware of the CBO analysis that backs up my claims. We’ve discussed it before, and even if we hadn’t, you couldn’t possibly have missed it unless you were living under a rock.
On page 4 of the following analysis, the CBO presents its conclusions about Ryan’s plan for Medicare and Medicaid:
“Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old with
average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiarys spending on premiums and
out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiarys spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the
extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.
Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. States would have additional flexibility to design
and manage their Medicaid programs, and they might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than under current law. Even with additional flexibility, however, the large projected reduction in payments would probably require states to decrease payments to Medicaid providers, reduce eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law…”
http://cbo.gov/publication/22085
Did you read that, Tina? Ryan’s changes to Medicaid and Medicare would cause the poor and elderly who use these services to pay more than they do now. At the same time, the wealthy would be paying less in taxes than they do now.
Ryan’s budget also cuts the Pell Grant, which helps millions of low-income students attend college every year, including myself. This means that less kids will be able to attend college. That actually might sound like a good thing to you, given the ignorant and mean-spirited cracks you have made about my college education in the past, but it also means less people able to get good jobs and contribute to the economy.
“Tax cuts for the rich is a bumper sticker without meaning.”
What are you talking about? Of course Ryan has called for tax cuts on the rich.
“This is particularly true under Obama and the Democrats.”
Yes, keep pretending that the economy was doing just fine before Obama’s inauguration.
“Obamacare actually does take money from medicare:”
There are so many things wrong with this argument, I don’t even know where to begin.
Let’s start with the fact that you and other Republicans have been clamoring for Medicare cuts since before I was born. And now that Obama is doing it, you’re, what…pretending to be angry? I don’t get it, Tina. It makes no sense. The Heritage article you cite uses words like “raid” and “rob.” You’ve used far worse words like “rationing” and “death panels.” But this is what you’ve always wanted!
Second, this isn’t just an issue your party changed its mind on once it got infected with Obama cooties. Republicans are STILL championing Medicare cuts, with Paul Ryan leading the call. Paul Ryan’s own plan contains about the same amount in Medicare cuts as Obama’s, according to numerous fact-checking and news organizations.
From an ABC “fact check:”
“One way or another, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney all have supported the $700 billion in cuts to Medicare spending now in place under the Affordable Care Act.
But you wouldnt know that by listening to the current debate.
The Romney-Ryan campaign in its latest TV ad assails Obama for approving the cuts in 2010. Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare, says the narrator. The money you paid for your guaranteed health careis going to a massive new government program thats not for you.
Voters might be left with the impression that Romney and Ryan have both opposed the cuts. The truth is that Ryan himself endorses them in his signature budget plan the same plan Romney has said he would sign as president if it reached his desk.
Those Medicare savings -achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse, not benefit cuts appear in the House Republicans FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored.
His plan would in part repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act except the reductions in Medicare spending now at the center of debate, according to analysts with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
Where Romney and Ryan find shelter for their new line of attack is in what they claim theyd do with the savings. As the ad suggests, they dont want the money to underwrite Obamacare, but for deficit reduction or other spending instead.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/fact-check-obama-ryan-romney-backed-medicare-cuts/
Ezra Klein goes deeper:
“Since the Romney campaign wants to run against President Obamas cuts to Medicare, its something of a problem for them that Paul Ryans budget includes those very same cuts to Medicare. And so theyve come up with a somewhat confused and confusing argument to distinguish the two plans.
Obamas cuts to Medicare are different because Ryan keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency while Obama uses it to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare.
This is basically a misunderstanding of how budgeting works. Or, at the least, its predicated on the listener misunderstanding how budgeting works.
What theyre doing is switching between two questions very quickly. The first question is: How much money are you cutting from Medicare? The second question is: How much overall deficit reduction is contained in your plan? And the second question isnt getting answered.
Heres what everyone agrees on: Ryan and Obama include the same cuts to the Medicare program itself. So if youre an insurance company participating in the Medicare Advantage program, youre getting the same cut no matter who wins the election. So the answer to the first question is, the same amount as the Obama administration.
What Romney/Ryan are saying is that they then take the money saved from their cuts to Medicare and put it toward deficit reduction while Obama takes that money and spends it on health care for poor people. The argument here is that by using the money to cut the deficit, Romney/Ryan make future cuts to Medicare less likely.
But Romney/Ryan also add a trillion dollars to the defense budget. And they have trillions of dollars in tax cuts they havent explained how theyre going to pay for. So those decisions make future cuts to Medicare more likely. Meanwhile, Obama cuts defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, raises about $1.5 trillion in new taxes, and puts all that money into deficit reduction. So that makes future Medicare cuts less likely.
So if the argument is that Romney/Ryan protect Medicare by putting the $770 billion in cuts towards deficit reduction, Obama protects Medicare by twice as much by putting the $1.5 trillion in new tax revenues towards deficit reduction. So far as the deficit is concerned, theres no difference between a dollar from Medicare and a dollar from taxes.
Which just leaves us where we began: Romney/Ryan want to do more of their deficit reduction by cutting social services while Obama wants to do more of his deficit reduction through raising taxes. Deciding whose plan makes more sense requires making judgments about whether Romney/Ryan will ultimately pay for their tax cuts. But deciding who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion just requires looking at who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion. And at the moment, thats both Obama and the Republican budget.
The Romney/Ryan campaign is aware of the difficulties in their argument, and so theyve introduced a new wrinkle. They told Avik Roy, who also serves as a health adviser to the campaign, that A Romney-Ryan Administration will restore the funding to Medicare. If thats true, then their budget math just got completely impossible, as Ill explain in a coming post.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/
The New Republic outlines how Obama’s Medicare cuts actually go to help low-income children and seniors:
“Yes, the Affordable Care Act includes substantial cuts to Medicare. But Ryan’s own budget, which nearly every House Republican voted to pass and which Romney has said he would sign as president, leaves those cuts in place and uses them to finance other priorities. In other words, the Romney campaign is attacking a proposal that Romney and his allies endorse.
The most significant difference between the two sides, at least for the short- to medium-term, is how they handle the savings these cuts generate. Obamacare puts the money back into the pockets of people who need help with their medical bills. A portion of the money is earmarked for children and non-elderly Americans, who, starting in 2014, will become eligible for Medicaid or receive tax credits to offset the cost of private insurance. A smaller, but still significant, portion of the money is for seniors. It helps them pay for prescription drugs, by filling the “donut hole” in Medicare Par D coverage. It also eliminates out-of-pocket costs for annual wellness visits, some cancer screenings, and other preventative services. Those benefits have actually started already: In the first six months of this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, more than 16 million seniors took advantage of the free preventative care provision.
Ryan’s budgetwhich, again, Romney has repeatedly embraced and said he would signactually takes those new benefits away. The Part D donut hole would open back up. Access to free preventative care would vanish. And where would Ryan and Romney put the money instead? They say it’s for deficit reduction. I’d say it’s really for their big new tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. If somebody is “stealing” from seniors here, it’s not Obama.
The two sides have each proposed additional changes to Medicare, the most significant of which would start to take effect a decade from now. They represent very different approaches to health care policy and are worthy of a serious, honest debate. But it’s hard to have that kind of discussion when one side cares so little about presenting the facts accurately.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106061/romney-ryan-medicare-cut-obamacare-priebus
So tell me, Tina: Are you for cutting Medicare, or against it? Romney and Ryan can’t seem to come up with a coherent answer to this question. Maybe you can.
I’ll try to respond to the specific claims from Heritage later. For now I’ll say it strikes me as dishonest that the think tank cited a CBO letter in their article, but did not mention that the very same letter concluded that repealing Obamacare would add $109 billion to the deficit:
“Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 20132022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.”
http://cbo.gov/publication/43471